SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) - The legal wrangling between Apple and Samsung continued unabated just hours before the start of the retrial over half of the $1 billion award a jury handed Apple 15 months ago, knocked down by a federal judge earlier this year.
A jury found in August 2012 that Samsung had "slavishly copied" iPhone and iPad patents to create its own line of smartphones and tablets, and awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages. But earlier this year U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh halved that after determining jurors had ignored her instructions by using the calculation theories of Apple expert Terry Musika, which she had ruled as legally impermissible before the trial ended.
Finding she could not calculate appropriate damages on her own and refusing to "turn a blind eye or 'bend over backwards' to find a possible permissible justification for the amount awarded," Koh ordered a new trial - with a new jury - on the damages, involving 13 devices and $450 million or more.
While that face-off begins Tuesday, both sides are also preparing for a second patent infringement showdown set for Koh's courtroom on March 31, 2014 over newer additions to their product lines, including the iPhone 5, Galaxy S3, and Galaxy Note 10.1. That circus has been overshadowed in recent days by allegations that Samsung's legal team at the firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan sent unredacted key terms of Apple's licensing agreements with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips to Samsung employees despite a protective order.
Apple learned of the leak after Nokia met with Samsung's licensing executives, who admitting knowing the confidential terms of the Apple-Nokia licenses. Last month, U.S. Magistrate Paul Grewal - who handles the pretrial minutiae of the Apple-Samsung fracas - ordered Samsung to produce all relevant emails and communications and to make employees and licensing executives available for deposition.
After conducting an in camera review of "boxes upon boxes" of Samsung's documents, Grewal said only three things were clear: that (a) Quinn Emanuel failed to redact sensitive business information and "pervasively distributed" details to unauthorized employees, (b) Samsung used the information in its negotiations with Nokia and Ericsson in 2012 and 2013, and (c) Quinn Emanuel failed to do anything despite being informed about the leaks on numerous occasions.
Grewal gave Samsung until Dec. 2 to explain why it shouldn't face sanctions, and set a hearing on the matter for Dec. 9.
Meanwhile in Koh's courtroom, bickering over experts and lost-profit theories have dominated the companies' filings over the last several weeks. Late Wednesday, the judge granted - sort of - Samsung's request to keep an Apple expert from testifying that the South Korean company copied patented technology and why it conducted competitive analysis of Apple products.
According to Samsung, Apple's expert Julie Davis - replacing Musika, who died of pancreatic cancer last December - lacked the proficiency to testify on whether copying took place and anything else outside of raw financial figures. For its part Apple argued that Davis, like Musika before her, had no intention of using the word "copying" to describe Samsung's actions because she is admittedly an economics expert and not a legal or technology guru.
